broall wrote:
Millions of irreplaceable exhibits in natural history museums are currently allowed to decay. Yet without analyses of eggs from museums, the studies linking pesticides with the decline of birds of prey would have been impossible. Therefore, funds must be raised to preserve at least those exhibits that will be most valuable to science in the future.
The argument presupposes that
(A) if a museum exhibit is irreplaceable, its preservation is of an importance that overrides economic considerations
(B) the scientific analysis of museum exhibits can be performed in nondestructive way
(C) eggs of extinct species should be analyzed to increase knowledge of genetic relationships among species
(D) it can be known at this time what data will be of most use to scientific investigators in the future
(E) the decay of organic material in natural history exhibits is natural and cannot be prevented
Source: LSAT
certain museum exhibits have helped scientists in the past
--->
we should raise $$ to preserve the museum exhibits that will be most valuable to scientists in the future
Well, for one thing, there’s the jump between past and future. How can we know which exhibits future scientists will find useful? Time travel hasn’t been developed yet...
Let’s go to the answer choices.
(A) has a bunch of term shifts. "Irreplaceable" is much stronger than "most valuable," and "overriding economic considerations" is much stronger than "raising funds." Already, this answer choice is too extreme.
But let’s say we take out those term shifts. Then this answer choice would basically say "valuable exhibits should be preserved!" This essentially restates the original conclusion. Any answer choice that tells us something we already know is wrong. Remember, assumptions are ALWAYS unstated.
(B) isn’t assumed. The stimulus talks about museum exhibits naturally decaying, not being actively destroyed. More importantly, the stimulus never describes how to determine the scientific value of museum exhibits. Perhaps scientific value can be assessed by scientific analyses, or perhaps by psychic readings. We don’t know if scientific analyses will be used, so we don’t need to know whether or not such analyses would harm exhibits.
(D) beautifully matches the assumption above. HOW on earth can we determine what will be valuable to future scientists??? The argument never lets us know, and (D) points this out. (D) is correct.
csaluja wrote:
Can anyone please explain to me why option E is incorrect and D is correct using the negation technique? I am still a bit confused regarding option E.
Hi
csaluja ,
E is a weakener here and not an assumption .
E) Negation -->the decay of organic material in natural history exhibits is not natural and can be prevented ---> This strengthens our conclusion
On the other hand ,
(D) it CANNOT be known at this time what data will be of most use to scientific investigators in the future --> If it can't be known now, how can we decide which exhibits to preserve?
Hope this helps!!
_________________
When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it. - Henry Ford
The Moment You Think About Giving Up, Think Of The Reason Why You Held On So Long